RevoGrid DataGrid MCP Pro
Server Details
Hosted Pro MCP server for RevoGrid DataGrid docs, examples, feature checks, and migration guidance.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- revolist/revogrid
- GitHub Stars
- 3,392
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 2.7/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Tools are mostly distinct: find_examples for examples, get_migration_notes for upgrade notes, resolve_feature_matrix for feature existence, and search_revogrid_docs as a broader search. Minor overlap exists between find_examples and search_revogrid_docs, but it's manageable.
All tool names use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, but the verbs vary (find, get, resolve, search) without a clear consistent prefix or suffix pattern.
With 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to documentation and feature lookup. The count is appropriate for a specialized knowledge server, though slightly small.
Covers key documentation needs: examples, migration notes, feature matrix, and general search. Missing direct tools for specific API reference entries or version comparisons, but the search tool may compensate.
Available Tools
4 toolsfind_examplesFind RevoGrid ExamplesCInspect
Search runnable or live RevoGrid examples only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| surface | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| framework | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'runnable or live' examples, hinting at interactive behavior, but no annotations are provided. It fails to disclose important traits like whether results are real-time, cached, or require internet access.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one sentence), but trades off completeness. Every word serves a purpose, yet additional context like parameter roles or filter behavior is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and only a terse description for a 5-parameter tool. The agent lacks critical context about result formats, pagination, or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain any parameter semantics. Agents must infer meaning from parameter names & enums alone, which is insufficient for correct usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds RevoGrid examples and includes the qualifier 'only', distinguishing it from searching docs. However, it could be more specific about the nature of examples (e.g., code snippets, configurations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like search_revogrid_docs or get_migration_notes. The word 'only' implies exclusivity but lacks direct comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_migration_notesGet Migration NotesCInspect
Get upgrade notes between RevoGrid versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| framework | No | ||
| toVersion | Yes | ||
| fromVersion | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'gets' notes, implying a read operation, but does not explain side effects, authentication, rate limits, or return value structure. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Crucial details are omitted, making the description unhelpful despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain version range semantics, what upgrade notes contain, or the role of the optional framework parameter. The tool's purpose is vaguely conveyed but not actionable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the 3 parameters (fromVersion, toVersion, framework). The description adds no parameter information whatsoever, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The agent gets no guidance on how to use each parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get upgrade notes between RevoGrid versions' clearly identifies the tool's action (Get) and resource (upgrade notes) within a specific domain (RevoGrid versions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_examples' and 'search_revogrid_docs' by focusing on version migration, though it could be more precise about the content of upgrade notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of when it is appropriate, prerequisites, or contraindications. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
resolve_feature_matrixResolve RevoGrid FeatureAInspect
Resolve whether a RevoGrid feature exists, whether it is Pro, and where to learn it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | ||
| framework | No | ||
| featureName | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, makes network calls, or has side effects. The description only states output nature, not behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of approximately 15 words, front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning, with no wasted space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description provides a clear summary of what the tool returns: existence, Pro status, and learning resources. It does not detail output format or parameter interactions, but is adequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention 'version', 'framework', or 'featureName' or how they affect the resolution. The schema provides only names, so the description adds no value for parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to resolve whether a RevoGrid feature exists, its Pro status, and learning resources. The verb 'resolve' and resource 'RevoGrid feature' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'find_examples' and 'search_revogrid_docs' by focusing on feature existence and status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs to check feature existence and status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_revogrid_docsSearch RevoGrid DocsCInspect
Search docs, API reference, examples, and migration notes for RevoGrid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| surface | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| docTypes | No | ||
| framework | No | ||
| requiresPro | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states what the tool searches but does not describe any behavioral traits such as whether it returns snippets, performs web searches, respects version constraints, or has any rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence, which is concise but lacks detail. It effectively communicates the core function but omits necessary contextual information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 7 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain how the search behaves, what the parameters do, or how results are returned, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema itself lacks descriptions. The tool description adds no information about any parameters, leaving the agent with no understanding of their purpose or how to use them effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to search RevoGrid documents including docs, API reference, examples, and migration notes. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resources. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_examples' or 'get_migration_notes', which might overlap in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not specify scenarios where this search tool is preferred over more targeted tools like 'find_examples' or 'get_migration_notes'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!